In the beginning

Comments

Just to summarize and make sure I've wrapped this up properly into a relatively simple argument, albeit not nearly complete nor properly prepared:

Atheism and theism are both non-provable as far as we've seen. It's actually easier to gather evidence for a theism at least, it simply requires evidence. You can make an argument that in the absence of evidence, you should assume that this is evidence of absence, but that's technically fallacious.

Pragmatically, you might be able to argue one or the other is a superior belief system for one reason or another, but you'll have to provide your system by which to judge it. Those are judged on their own independently of the truth-value of the belief system. We could all believe in an entirely made up monster, but if that maximizes welfare in a welfare based value system... it still maximizes welfare.

Further, as lackofcheese got the discussion into, we could propose that "believing the correct things" as a value system... but on some level we must always recognize the difference between the observable and the real. So our knowledge would always include knowledge of our own limitations, so we wouldn't really "know" if either theism or not-theism are true without some additional evidence.

These lead into my original argument, that Apreche's statement that "adults believing that fairy tales and magic are real is a big fucking problem" is incorrect. They can believe in magic and fairy tales, if those still result in "the best thing" based on whatever valuation system we are agreeing to subscribe to.

You can use that on Christianity or other already propositioned theisms. But there are infinite possible theisms. And a good test of a theism is extremely hard to perform in the vast majority of cases. That's why it's technically fallacious in the theism debate.

I'll cop to using theism improperly in some sentences, but I believe my point was clear enough. You can't argue that people that have any particular theistic beliefs are inherently bad or that the having of theistic beliefs is an inherently negative thing.

Totally harmless unless/until they start telling you that God wants you to start/stop doing [thing] or hate [group]. Up until that point, who cares?

The thing is, such things are a natural consequence of pretty much any religion. Someone who does none of those things but claims to be religious is likely to either1) not believe what they claim to believe, or2) not care at all what happens to you at all.

This is a startlingly ignorant generalization about religious/spiritual people.

Your beef is with organized religion. Best stick with that.

No, some of us think that grown, seemingly intelligent, adults still believing that fairy tales and magic are real is a big fucking problem, especially when so many wield such great power and influence in our world. We need people to act in the best interests of other people, and not to listen to their imaginary friend.

So, did you grow up in the Bible Belt? Because people with a boulder sized chip on their shoulders about religion, like the one you've got, are generally from there.

People use that same argument about homosexuality, so I'd tread lightly there unless you want a whole new thread. What separates homosexuality from pedophilia from a pathology/genetics/nature/nurture standpoint? Nothing, really. The differences are external, chiefly in that a child cannot consent and therefore cannot enter into a consensual, healthy, sexual relationship.

So, defining mental illness largely as aberration from what is considered neurotypical, homosexuality could easily qualify.

Assigning negative connotations to what could very well be an utterly benign belief in God (which I've got, believe it or not) is pretty much exactly the same thing as homophobia--socially, philosophically, and psychologically speaking.

It's deciding that based on a trait that is just intolerable to you, an individual MUST necessarily also have other negative, more universally disliked traits that you have decided are inseparably related. Just like people used to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, sexual promiscuity, and general immorality.

And schizophrenic delusion implies internalized hallucination. People who are religious do not necessarily believe that God speaks to them or in any way communicates with them. Equating the two is intellectually dishonest and again, is pretty much equivalent to the homosexual = pedophile conflation that was going on in the 50s.

If there is no interaction with your god, why call it a god? Why bother to think about it or honor it or follow its wishes or care that it is there at all?

That's a good question, but a much more important question is, why do you care?

Still, there are assumptions underlying your question, that anybody who believes that there may be a God or that there is a God necessarily attributes will or motive or desire to that God.

Not everybody does.

Part of the reason for this is PR. You only hear from the people who are screaming at you that God wants you to do X. There are just as many (maybe more) people who are just content thinking that there probably is some kind of god, but we can't really know anything about it, and are happy just presuming that there is one without any moral repercussions whatsoever or any desire to preach to anybody about it.

If there is no interaction with your god, why call it a god? Why bother to think about it or honor it or follow its wishes or care that it is there at all?

That's a good question, but a much more important question is, why do you care?

Because stupid people try to dictate policy and limit the rights of others in the name of gods, and because I don't want someone who is delusional to the point of seeing and hearing things that aren't there to be allowed to drive a school bus.

If there is no interaction with your god, why call it a god? Why bother to think about it or honor it or follow its wishes or care that it is there at all?

That's a good question, but a much more important question is, why do you care?

Because lots of really dumb people do amazingly terrible things in the name of fairy tales.

I mean, I think it's an inescapable reality, but I understand why some people get riled up about it.

But that's a non-sequitur in the thread you're commenting on, because Jason defined the God he's questioning as a God who has no interaction with its believers. In that environment, what would there be to do in the name of such a God? See: the rest of the post you're quoting.

I don't have a problem with being worried about fundamentalists, zealots, and cultists. What I have a problem with is the statement that anybody who would ever consider the existence of a God as plausible is a dangerously mentally ill individual who society is better off without. That's some heinous shit.

Would it be hate speech if we replaced the word "god" in all your posts with the word "Smurfs"? There is equal evidence for the belief that either exist, which is to say none. People who believe in earnest that Smurfs are real are dangerous by virtue of not being able to think within a rational framework. They need help.

Stating that someone who allows for the existence of a God is a blemish on society, best done away with, is pretty much exactly the same thing as saying that women, or gays, or blacks, or any other group you might irrationally (by ignorantly attributing other negative traits to them as if they are synonymous) decide we can do without should also be killed off.

You were quick to attack my intellectual credentials yet you're more or less copping to being a bigot, except you feel that your bigotry is justified by addressing a majority group (defined as broadly as possible so that you can include as many awful acts and individuals as possible.)

No, I accepted your premise that society would be better off without people who believe in god (smurfs), not that we carry out an active campaign of murder against them. John Lennon suggested the world would be better off without nations, possessions, and religion, but he didn't go on a rampage.

You're calling me a bigot for believing that deism (smurfism) is a mental illness. But believing in god (smurfs) reveals a horrid condition in which a person is detached from reality and will not or cannot disengage their belief despite a 100 percent lack of evidence. That's a mental illness. You don't call mental health workers bigots for trying to cure patients of their beliefs that smurfs are real.

Also, there are some stunning scientific findings that bras improve the taste of the cow breast meat.